Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />March 12,2019 <br />different things happening at the office, as far as people who will be in and out. So, whatever we <br />would have by the end of this week could potentially be presented at the next meeting. But, if it <br />is three weeks out, that is not going to be; we send you all the stuff a week ahead of time and <br />your preference on this, you have told us, is actually two. So we have not been able to hit that <br />mark, yet. So that is where we are. <br />The Chair said so, May is a more feasible time frame? <br />Ms. Morris said if that is the timeline that they are thinking yes, potentially, that would be more <br />feasible. <br />Mr. Rockett said they just indicated that there will be at least two to three weeks to get the first <br />phase of the glare study back so that is clearly not going to be ready for review and ready for <br />April, so is it worthwhile, I guess --Mr. Chairman, correct me if I am wrong, but is it worthwhile <br />to try to review a couple of things in April and then a couple of things in May. We know we are <br />going to have to be here in May, why don't we just shoot for this item in May? <br />Ms. Morris said if that is the board's pleasure. Even if they have materials that they could supply <br />before the end of the week, we could review those. But, if we do not have them, that gives us two <br />weeks and it does not allow enough time, tum-around time, for them to address comments <br />appropriatel y. <br />The Chair said plus, they have got travel time. You should be able to get a flight from Phoenix in <br />seven weeks, right? <br />Mr. Benshoff said it is Wednesday tomorrow; it would be difficult to tum in documents on <br />Friday, just having heard your wishes tonight. I have to say there is an alternative. Everything <br />will be reviewed by the staff. Again, if the plan is approved with conditions, as the staff <br />suggested, Recurrent has to answer all of the questions anyway to the staff. The advantages, <br />Recurrent would get a conditional permit, very conditional because there is 30 proposed <br />conditions, and it would not come back to the Board again, assuming that Recurrent met the <br />conditions. They are a long way from doing that. <br />Mr. Dagenhart said here is my problem with your proposal. You have been working with staff <br />for six months and we are still not even where staff is comfortable with your plan. My level of <br />trust is not very high. <br />Mr. Paxton agrees. <br />The Chair thinks May is a better option. <br />Mr. James Gittens, 71 Stillwater Street Kitcherer Ontario, Canada. Just to address your point <br />Mr. Dagenhart, we have, for the last six months, made progress. Particularly, in the last month, I <br />54